Posts by Alex Coleman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
which, whatever good oil you heard from Duncan Garner, never seemed all that likely
Oil straight from the whale, wasn't it?
-
Hard News: This time it's Syria, in reply to BenWilson,
It's going to be tricky in the middle of the civil war. Whoever goes in is going to be target for someone, and will hence need 'protection' which will open up more risk for 'fatal misunderstandings'.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Yes I do expect MPs to put that out of their mind to the extent that they don't go sabotaging the party via off the record quotes to Gower.
The fact that whatever horrible thing Cunliffe did in November can't be talked about because no one knows, is part of the point. He was doing it in house, not through the media.
The only suggestion I have seen is that he thought he should be leader rather than Shearer. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing. That really is all in the game. It's an important part of the game.
How is what he was doing more disloyal than those who were talking to Gower about Shearer's leadership months ago saying he had til spring? r those who talked to Garner in the #spull debacle? It's pretty obvious that that was all the same people. The same ones who followed it up with whatever resulted in Shearer stepping down.
Why was none of that 'disloyal'?
Do you see the point I am making?
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
no matter the precise details
Actually, no. Matter the precise details very much. :)
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
As I say, I think Michie’s case is all in the game, and just a combination of trying a bit on, being slightly unfortunate in words, and bad luck. But I do think some pro-Cunliffe figures were running homophobic lines, and that does need to be called out – in the same way that if people were running racist lines against Jones, that’s not ok either.
[Also, guys, Cunliffe gets asked about loyalty heaps because historically he’s had form in that area. Robertson doesn’t, and nor does Jones, and so they don’t get asked.]
I think the question that Michie was asked, which was how "conservatives" would react to Robertson's sexuality needs to be kept in mind. It's easy enough to think of a perfect answer a few days later, in a written context like a comment section, but during a live interview I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt as to her motivations.
And there is no disloyalty to the party in wanting the leadership. I've yet to see anything presented where Cunliffe publically has done anything toxic to the party's image. The worst he was accused of was lobbying for the rules changes at conference. The response to this from the ABCs was to go to journos, off the record, with things that did bring the party into a bad light. This is all quite deliberate. I really don't see how there is an equivalence.
It is all in the game, if you like, but how you play the game matters. The ABC group play the game in a toxic way, through the media, in a way that hurts the party. If you have examples of Cunliffe doing this, I'd love to hear about them.
The worst thing about the ABC MO though, is that is doesn't actually work.
Are the people in the ABC caucus more, or less, disloyal than Cunliffe? The answer to that depends on whether or not you think the party should be run by a little group who wield power brutally. Robertson hasn't crossed that group, so he is loyal, as is Hipkins and whoever it is that has been saying damaging things to Gower.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Russell Brown,
Notice how Gower has conflated MPs who will give Grant their 1st preference with those who “hate his guts”.
See I'm not so sure. You can say whatever you like about the pseudonymous activists at the Standard, but the ABC in caucus people have got form for this sort of dirty pool. Would Gower really take an off the record quote from the DC camp, and spin it as Cunliffe's opponent's hating his guts? That's a pretty big assumption to make, no?
-
So here's Paddy again:
Sources say Labour's Anyone But Cunliffe club - ABC - declared/locked in at 15 MPs. 15/34 MPs who can't stand him, absolutely hate his guts.
https://twitter.com/patrickgowernz/status/377644637067816961
No context whatsoever. Sources? Assume it's Labour but not stated.
Not told if the 'sources' gave the names of these 'declared' ABC haters of Cunliffe's guts.
This is the sort of crap that the ABCs have been doing. It's fucking toxic. There is at least 1 caucus member who wanted Paddy to report that Cunliffe will have a caucus in which 15 members hate his guts, but lacks the courage to be open about it, or accept the party process.
-
Not sure who is is more worried; MPs that end up having backed the wrong horse, or the journos who cultivated relationships with them.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Henry Barnard,
I do hope there is a significant degree of hyperbole in all this. Clearly, Robertson hasn’t got much of a grip on his supporters in caucus.
Or maybe he has? Who knows? Garner might, but he’s not saying because the all important thing is to ‘protect his sources’, which I gather means something like, ‘protect my relationship with my source’.
It seems obvious that Garner’s source wants this stuff to be reported right? That’s a reasonable assumption to explain why they are telling him this stuff I think. That doesn’t mean it is actually true, nor does it mean Garner actually believes it.
It’s a good ‘story’, and that’s good enough. Reporting the possible motivations of his source would be as damaging to his relationship with that source as naming them would be. So that too gets absorbed into ‘protecting his source’.
And because we don’t know who it is, we can’t really get a clear idea of what their motivations might be, or judge whether or not they are in a position to know how true the claims are. It’s pretty useless to us all around, information wise. All we know is that at least 1 person said this to Garner.
I’m speculating that it is probably the same source as the #spull ‘letter’ a while back, and probably one of the same people who were talking about Cunliffe being detested awhile before that, and withing the group who were telling anyone who would listen that cunliffe was absolutely going to stage a coup at conference last year.
And quite possibly someone from within the group who withdrew their support from Sheare quite recently, and are now finding themselves not so good at campaigning in something that resembles an election as they are at sticking knives into people via journalists with whom they share confidence.
Now that is all speculation, and probably wrong, but what the hell am I supposed to think?
And it would be useful to know the MPs who “openly” despise Cunliffe: if it is open then Garner can name them, surely?
Exactly.
-
Hard News: This time it's Syria, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Yeah, and “change the momentum on the battlefield’’ can mean anything as well, that possibly authorises hitting other rebels than those we like.